Franklin-Lamoille Bank v. Wetherby

Supreme Court of Vermont

Franklin-Lamoille Bank v. Wetherby

520 A.2d 991, 147 Vt. 649, 3 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 414, 1986 Vt. LEXIS 454

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedDecember 2, 1986

DocketNo. 85-499

StatusPublished

This text of 520 A.2d 991 (Franklin-Lamoille Bank v. Wetherby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Franklin-Lamoille Bank v. Wetherby, 520 A.2d 991, 147 Vt. 649, 3 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 414, 1986 Vt. LEXIS 454 (Vt. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Under the default provisions of article nine of the Vermont Commercial Code, 9A V.S.A. §§ 9-501 to 9-507, a secured party is under no obligation to proceed against the collateral or release its security interest therein before electing to reduce to judgment its claim on the underlying debt. Farmers Production Credit Association v. Arena, 145 Vt. 20, 24, 481 A.2d 1064, 1066 (1984). Moreover, the secured party (plaintiff) in this case never took possession of the collateral. Thus, there is no basis in law or fact for defendant’s claim that the plaintiff acted in a commercially unreasonable manner by not selling the collateral or releasing its security interest therein before suing on the note.

As the note provided for recovery of a reasonable attorney’s fee by plaintiff in the event of a default and action on the note, the fee requested for services rendered in connection with this appeal, in the amount of $271.50, is granted.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Under the default provisions of article nine of the Vermont Commercial Code, 9A V.S.A. §§ 9-501 to 9-507, a secured party is under no obligation to proceed against the collateral or release its security interest therein before electing to reduce to judgment its claim on the underlying debt. Farmers Production Credit Association v. Arena, 145 Vt. 20, 24, 481 A.2d 1064, 1066 (1984). Moreover, the secured party (plaintiff) in this case never took possession of the collateral. Thus, there is no basis in law or fact for defendant’s claim that the plaintiff acted in a commercially unreasonable manner by not selling the collateral or releasing its security interest therein before suing on the note.

As the note provided for recovery of a reasonable attorney’s fee by plaintiff in the event of a default and action on the note, the fee requested for services rendered in connection with this appeal, in the amount of $271.50, is granted.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 A.2d 991, 147 Vt. 649, 3 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 414, 1986 Vt. LEXIS 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-lamoille-bank-v-wetherby-vt-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack